The Huntington California Expedition.

Basketry Designs of the Indians of
Northern r

By ROLAND B. DIXON.

BULLETIN

0f IJatxtraX

VOL. XVII, PART I, pp. 1-32.
New York, February 12, 1902.

LIST OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL PAPERS FROM THE
BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF
NATURAL HISTORY.

PRICE

A Table of the Geographical Distribution of American Relics
in a Collection exhibited in the American Museum of
Natural History, with Explanatory Text, by A. E. Doug
lass (Vol. VIII, 1896). 22 pp $0.75

The Temple of Tepoztlan, Mexico, by M. H. Saville (Vol.

VIII, 1896). 6 pp., 5 pi 50

A Rock Painting of the Thompson River Indians, British
Columbia, by James Teit, edited by Franz Boas (Vol.
VIII, 1896). 4 pp 30

The Decorative Art of the Indians of the North Pacific Coast,

by Franz Boas (Vol. IX, 1897). 54 pp 75

An Ancient Figure of Terra Cotta from the Valley of Mexico,

by M. H. Saville (Vol. IX, 1897). 4 pp., 2 pi 40

The Huichol Indians of Mexico, by Carl Lumholtz (Vol. X,

1898). 14 pp., 2 pi 50

Marked Human Bones from a Prehistoric Tarasco Indian
Burial- Place in the State of Michoacan, by Carl Lumholtz
and Ales Hrdlicka (Vol. X, 1898). 20 pp., 5 pi 60

Description of an Ancient Anomalous Skeleton from the Valley
of Mexico, with Special Reference to Supernumerary and
Bicipital Ribs in Man, by Ales Hrdlicka (Vol. XII, 1899).
28 pp., 5 pi 50

The Eskimo of Smith Sound, by A. L. Kroeber (Vol. XII,

1899). 64 pp., 4 pi. ; 80

Symbolism of the Arapaho Indians, by Alfred L. Kroeber (Vol.

XIII, 1900). 16 pp .25

A Shell Gorget from the Huasteca, Mexico, by Marshall H.

Saville (Vol. XIII, 1900). 6 pp ... .25

An Onyx Jar from Mexico, in Process of Manufacture, by M.

H. Saville (Vol. XIII, 1900). 4 pp., i pi 30

Cruciform Structures near Mitla, by Marshall H. Saville (Vol.

XIII, 1900). 18 pp., 10 pi i . oo

A Bilateral Division of the Parietal Bone in a Chimpanzee, with

a Special Reference to the Oblique Sutures in the Parietal,

by Ales Hrdlicka (Vol. XIII, 1900). 16 pp .30

A Bronze Figurine from British Columbia, by Franz Boas (Vol.

XIV, 1901). 2 pp., i pi 25

A. J. Stone's Measurements of Natives of the Northwest Terri
tories, by Franz Boas (Vol. XIV, 1901). i6pp.,-5pl 80

The Eskimo of Baffin Land and Hudson Bay, by Franz Boas

(Vol. XV, 1901). 370 pp., 4 pi , 3.00

Basketry Designs of the Indians of Northern California, by

Roland B. Dixon (Vol. XVII, 1902). 32 pp., 37 pi 1.50

twicfcerbocfeer press, mew

BULLETIN

OF THE

AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY.

VOLUME XVII, 1902.

I. — BASKETRY DESIGNS OF THE INDIANS OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA.

By ROLAND B. DIXON.
PLATES I-XXXVII.

ONE of the earliest-noted and prime characteristics of
the Indians of California is the great development among
them of the art of basket-making. Not only did they excel
in technique, in producing water-tight baskets of both the
coiled and twined varieties, but also in the extent to which
they developed the purely artistic side of basket-making in
the elaboration of designs and methods of ornamentation.
Carving and painting were, as far as we know, not numbered
among the arts of this portion of the Pacific coast; pottery
was unknown; and decoration in dress was, if we except the
feather ornaments used at dances, as a rule, of the simplest
sort in comparison with the elaborate and often profuse dec
oration found among many of the Indians of the plains. The
California Indians were, therefore, practically confined, for the
expression of their artistic sense, to basketry alone; and possi
bly this concentration of effort will afford a partial explanation,
at least, of the great perfection to which the art was carried.

But, while we find that basket-making and basketry design
and ornamentation are characteristic of the California Indians
as a whole, these arts were not developed to the same extent,
or along the same lines, in all parts of the region. We can,

[January, 1902.] [i] 1

159444

2 Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. [Vol. XVII,

in consequence, distinguish several more or less clearly defined
areas, each of which has a somewhat characteristic type of
basketry and design. There is, of course, much intergrading,
much that is difficult to classify; but on the whole the type
areas are quite clearly distinguishable. Leaving the more
detailed discussion of these type areas till later, it will be
sufficient to outline briefly the different areas proposed. Be
ginning at the north, we have what might be called the
Northwestern Type, which includes the area occupied by the
Hupa (Athapascan), Karok (Quoratean),Yurok (Weitspekan),
and perhaps the Shasta (Sastean). The Northeastern Type
would comprise the Modoc and Klamath (Lutuamian), Shasta
'(?), Pit Rivers (Palainihan), Yana (?), Wintun (Copehan),
and Maidu (Pujunan). The Porno Type is confined appar
ently to this stock (Kulanapan). The relations of the Yuki
(Yukian) and Costanoan are still doubtful. This division
must be regarded as only provisional, and further study and
material may serve to alter it here and there.1

Each type area includes, as a rule, several distinct groups
of tribes, each group possessing, as will be seen, its own dis
tinctive type of design. In discussing the designs, therefore,
each group will be considered separately, beginning with the
Maidu, in regard to which the information is most complete.

DESIGNS OF THE NORTHEASTERN AREA.

MAIDU. — The Indians of this stock occupied the region
which may be described roughly as lying east of the Sacra
mento River, extending as far as the Nevada line, and stretch
ing north and south from the southern line of Lassen and
Tehama Counties to the Cosumnes River. A brief description
of a number of designs from this stock has already been given
elsewhere.2 Further collections from all parts of the Maidu
territory have afforded a large amount of new material; and,

1 The majority of the baskets the designs of which are here discussed belong to the
second or Northeastern Type, and were collected during the years 1899 and 1900. A
few baskets are included from the Southeastern Type for comparison, although the
meaning of the designs was not obtained ._ The Porno baskets are from a collection
purchased by the Museum, and the meanings of the designs are those given by the
collector, Mr. Carl Purdy.

2 R. B. Dixon, Basketry Designs of the Maidu Indians of California (American
Anthropologist, N.S., Vol. II, pp. 266-276).

•

1902.] Dixon, Basketry Designs of California Indians. 3

though it is probable that there are other designs in use by
these Indians, the present enumeration may be regarded as
fairly complete. Following the plan adopted in the prelimi
nary description, the designs found on the baskets may be
divided into three groups, according to the object said to be
represented: (i) Animal designs, (2) Plant designs, and (3)
Designs representing various natural or artificial objects.

i. Animal Designs. — One of the commonest designs on bas
kets from all parts of the area occupied by the Maidu is that
of the quail, or more properly the quail-tip. The characteristic
feature of the bird (the head-plume) is represented by a verti
cal line, the end of which is bent at right angles, and somewhat
enlarged. On Plate I, Fig. i (Butte County), a very charac
teristic form of the design is shown, and a more elaborate
form, apparently only found in the southern portion of Maidu
territory, is shown in Figs. 2, 3 (Placer County). This design
seems to be confined exclusively to baskets of the coiled
type.

Quite rare, and very local in its distribution, is the design
known as "duck's wing" (Plate I, Fig. 4, Plumas County).
The basket here shown is of considerable age, and is the only
example seen of this design, which is said to typify the patch
of white seen on either side of the bird. Of equal rarity, and
occurring within the same limited area, is what is called an
"eye" (Plate I, Fig. 5, Plumas County). There is here some
resemblance to be noted to the design known as "longko"
or " diamond" (Plate XIII, Fig. 2); but, at least in this re
gion, the two forms are regarded as distinct.

All members of the Maidu appear to use a design represent
ing an earthworm or caterpillar. One of the simplest and
commonest forms, a series of single parallelograms of solid
color linked together by the corners, is shown on Plate II,.
Fig. i (El Dorado County). A slight variation in the desigm
as applied to the flatter plaque-baskets is shown in Fig. 2
(Butte County). Still another treatment is that in Fig. 3,
(El Dorado County). In this case it was said that the banded
parallelograms signified the striped caterpillar. With these
is classed, because of similarity, a design of rather uncertain

4 Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. [Vol. XVII,

significance (Fig. 4, Butte County). The only explanation
which could be obtained for this was "big tongues."

The design known as "gray squirrel's foot" (Plate II, Fig.
5, Butte County), is similar to two others of different signifi
cance occurring farther to the north. The design has but a
small range, and seems restricted to the Northern Maidu ex
clusively. Confined apparently to the Maidu of the Sacra
mento Valley about Chico is the fish- teeth design (Plate III,
Fig. 4, Butte County). The intent here is to show the wide-
open mouth of the fish, and, viewed from below, the resem
blance is quite striking.

Designs representing snakes seem to be restricted entirely
to the Southern Maidu, particularly to those in Placer and
El Dorado Counties. On Plate III, Fig. i, we have the rattle
snake, a design which occurs again in Fig. 3, the diamond-
shaped figures here being hollow, and combined with the
arrow-point design, further examples of which will be given
later. The diamonds in these designs seem to be an imitation
of the spots on the common rattlesnake of the region, Crotalus
lucifer. Beside the rattlesnake, we find also the water-snake.
This is shown, as applied to a plaque, in Fig. 2, and on large
soup-baskets on Plate IV, Figs. 4, 5. It is probable that the
design on the two unfinished baskets shown on Plate XVII,
Figs, i, 2, is the same.

On Plate IV, Fig. i (-E1 Dorado County) , we have a design not
common, but evidently widely spread. This is the milleped
or thousand-legged worm, the many small triangular appen
dages to the zigzag line being the many feet of the creature.
Plate IV, Fig. 2 (Butte County), shows the same design on a
basket of much better workmanship, and Fig. 3 (Placer
County) shows what is apparently the same design, which
here, however, is explained as the fly.

The butterfly pattern (Plate V, Fig. i, Butte County) is
said to represent the wing pattern of a species of large yellow
butterfly. A smaller butterfly is said to have its wing pattern
shown on the basket figured on Plate V, Fig. 2 (Butte County) ;
it is, however, strongly suggestive of the rattlesnake design
on Plate III, Fig. i. In the same group with the butterfly

1902.] Dtxon, Basketry Designs of California Indians. 5

should be mentioned the moth-miller (Plate V, Fig. 5, Placer
County). The spread wings of the moth are said to be
represented in this design, which is apparently confined to
the Southern Maidu. Its resemblance to the black-oak on
Plate IX, Fig. 3, to the spool pattern of the Wintun (Plate
XXIV, Fig. i), and to the pine-cone (Plate XX, Fig. i) of the
Pit Rivers, may be noted.

Among those designs having a very limited range is that of
the raccoon (Plate V, Fig. 3, Butte County). This is the only
specimen of the design seen, and is explained as representing
either the stripes on the animal or the os penis. The real origin
of the basket shown in Fig. 4 is not certain. Although in the
possession of the Indians of the Maidu stock in Big Meadows,
Plumas County, and claimed by them to have been made there
by Indians of that stock, there are reasons for supposing that
it may be a Pit River basket, although possibly only a good
instance of the adaptation of -Pit River designs slightly modi
fied. The design on the body of the basket is said to be flying
geese, the triangles and rhomboids in their arrangement typi
fying the flight of the bird. The design around the edge is
said to represent mountains (compare Plate XXII, Fig. 5).

Three of the designs shown on Plate VI, representing the
grasshopper leg or foot, are more widely variant than any
others seen. In all three cases the meaning of the design was
given confidently. The type prevailing among the Southern
Maidu is that in Figs, i, 2 (Nevada and El Dorado Counties).
Among the Northern Maidu in the high Sierra, the form shown
in Fig. 3 (Plumas County) is the one in use, but it is a design
which, so far as observation shows, is seldom used. In the
Sacramento Valley villages of the Northern Maidu, however,
still another form is customary (Fig. 4, Butte County). Here
it was pointed out that the lines bent at an angle denoted
the bent leg of the grasshopper. It seems not impossible
that the form shown in Fig. 3 may be genetically related to
that in Figs. 1,2; and further search may show intermediate
stages in this development. All three of these, however, seem
to differ considerably in intent from Fig. 4.

2. Plant Designs. — One of the noteworthy features of Maidu

6 Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. [Vol. XVII,

decorative art is the unusually large number of designs which
are said to represent plants of some sort. On Plate VII, Fig.
i (Butte County), we have what is called simply a "plant,"
no more specific description being obtainable. The basket
itself is a very old one, certainly fifty years old, if not more.
What is described as a vine is shown in Fig. 2 (Plumas County)
and again on Plate VIII, Fig. i (Butte County), here, however,
with slight variations. The spiral character of this design is
supposed to represent the twining of the vine about a pole,
the points being the individual leaves protruding on each
side. As far as known, this design is confined exclusively to
the Northern Maidu. The common brake (Pteris aquilina) is
shown on Plate VIII, Fig. 2 (Butte County). The points are
here said to represent the pinnae of the fern; the significance
of the striped central bar is, in epite of further inquiries, still
unknown. This design also seems to "be restricted to the
Northern Maidu.

Two other northern designs are those shown in Figs. 3, 4
(Butte County). The former was declared to be a tree, but
of what species was not known, although it was suggested
that it was most probably the sugar-pine. This would seem
reasonable, inasmuch as the pendants from the ends of the
horizontal arms in the design might very well stand for
the beautiful drooping cones of this most attractive tree. The
so-called "flower" design occurs in Fig. 4, and is of quite
frequent occurrence on baskets from the Konkau and other
Maidu of the northern Sacramento Valley. The design here
is somewhat irregular, but represents the overlapping petals
of a flower, the resemblance being most striking, as in the
case of the fish-teeth, when the basket is viewed from below.

Local again in distribution, at least with this meaning, is
the yellow-pine (Plate IX, Fig. i, El Dorado County). The por
tion of the tree selected for representation is not known. The
very close similarity of this design to that shown on Plate
XIV, Fig. 3, there explained as animal tracks, is worthy of note.
With the large pack-basket shown on Plate IX, Fig. 2 (Plumas
County), we return again to a northern design. This is known
as the "pine-cone," and is one of the most effective designs

1902.] Dixon, Basketry Designs of California Indians. 7

of the series. In this the sharp, horizontally directed points
represent the strong spines of the large pine-cone of the
region. The design about the upper edge seems to be the
main design but half carried out, and is said to represent
mountains. If, however, we compare these designs with the
lizard and owl's claw on Pit River baskets (Plate XIX;
Plate XXII, Fig. 5), the very strong similarity is at once
apparent, and we are led to the conclusion that in this basket
we have either a Pit River basket, or a remarkably good
case of borrowing a Pit River design. It would not be im
possible for the basket to be really from the Pit River In
dians, for it was obtained in Big Meadows, on the very bor
ders of Palainihan territory.

On Plate IX, Figs. 3,4 (El Dorado County), are two plant
designs explained respectively as the black-oak (Quercus Kel-
loggii} and white-oak (Quercus lobata). These designs are
confined to the southern part of the Maidu region, and what
portion of the trees in question are represented is not known.
The similarity of these designs to others within the stock is
noticeable. Fig. 5 (Plumas County) is explained as bushes
or brush, and Fig. 6 (Plumas County) as either bushes or
flowers; but in regard to this latter the identification was
very uncertain. The similarity of the former to the gray
squirrel's foot, etc., should be noted.

3. Designs representing Natural or Artificial Objects. — The
third groitt j^Lesigns is that which includes all representations
of natural*. c^Birtificial objects, or the phenomena of nature.
One of thejBimonest, not only of this group, but of all the
designs rnj^Hith, is that known as the "feather," or some
times " anB feather." On Plate X are showii three examples
of a simplSRe of this design: Fig. i (El Dorado County), as
it occurs "IB south, and Figs. 2, 3 (Butte County), the pre
vailing f ori^H. the Sacramento Valley villages of the Northern
Maidu. T^^ltent in all cases is to depict the feathers used
on the war arrows, which were thus notched with great regu
larity. More complicated forms of this design, the details of
which are not yet clear, are shown on Plate XI. Only a
single example ^Sas seen of the type of Fig. i (Butte County),

8 Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. [Vol. XVII,

the H-like figures in the central stripe being quite unusual and
unexplained. Another variant is that in Figs. 2, 5 (Plumas
County), here- associated with the quail-tip design, which
forms the triangular figure in the centre about the rim. The
pack-basket, Fig. 3 (Plumas County), shows a simple form of
the design more like those on Plate X; and Fig. 4 (Plumas
County) presents still a fifth type of the design, with an
irregular figure of unknown significance inside the "point."

Without doubt the most frequently used of all designs is
the arrow-point or flint. Throughout the whole Maidu area
this design seems to predominate, and while varying in a
number of ways, yet it is almost always easy to recognize.
A rather common form of the design in the south is that on
Plate XII, Fig. i (Placer County). Another type occurs in
Fig. 2 (Plumas County). Here in this Northern Type the
arrow-points are doubled, being placed base to base. In Fig.
3 (El Dorado County) is another and simpler treatment, and
in Fig. 4 (Butte County) a rather striking arrangement in
spirals. In all these cases the design seems to be differen
tiated from the simpler forms of the feather by the fact that
the triangles are typically isosceles and have their bases or
shortest sides horizontal, whereas the triangles in the feather
design are rarely isosceles, and have their bases or shortest
sides vertical or oblique. A simple form recalling Plate XII,
Fig. 2, is that on Plate XIII, Fig. i (Plumas County). Here
the points are placed base to base as in the other design, but
actually in contact, and are linked as before by narrow lines.
Plate XIII, Fig. 2 (El Dorado County), shows a very pleasing
symmetrical arrangement of these double points standing
singly, and is also remarkable as being one of the two ex
amples, out of many hundreds of baskets seen, in which the
groundwork of the design is dark; all others, without excep
tion, having dark designs on a light background. Another
symmetrical treatment occurs again in Fig. 3 (Butte County),
and serves apparently as a transitional form to the simple
zigzag in Fig. 4 (El Dorado County), which is one of the
common forms of the arrow-point in this region. A very odd
design occurs on the plaque-basket in Fig. 5 (Plumas County),

1902.] Dixon, Basketry Designs of California Indians. 9

and was identified positively with the arrow-point by the
woman from whom the basket was obtained. No other
examples of this design were seen anywhere, and its very con
siderable divergence from the rather coherent body of arrow-
point designs as a whole, is quite marked. An example
apparently of the arrow-point design is that on Plate XIV,
Fig. i (Plumas County). Here the design about the edge is
the simple zigzag, and is unquestionably the arrow-point.
Beneath this is another design in which the zigzags vary
greatly in length. This design is not a Maidu design, and is
not understood by them, but is distinctly stated to be copied
from the baskets of people living to the southward, in all
probability the Washoe. It is interesting to note, that, in
this case of a clearly borrowed design, no attempt seems to
\)£ made to invent a meaning.

For the design shown in Fig. 2 (Butte County) no other
explanation could be obtained than that it represented an
oblong or diamond, the same word ("longko") being used to
describe any other diamond-shaped figure, as, for example,
the diamonds in a pack of cards. In Fig. 3 (Butte County)
the design is that known as "animal tracks," the particular
animal being very uncertain. The branching of the pattern
from the apices of the "points" is said to mean that the
"track runs both ways." The design is of moderate fre
quency among the Northern Maidu.

Of rare occurrence, and very local in distribution, is the
design called "mountains and clouds," shown in Fig. 4
(Plumas County). Here the superposed triangles represent
a mountain-range seen end on, in perspective, the short verti
cal lines being trees. The clouds are represented by the
zigzag about the edge of the basket; but this is practically
identical with the zigzag explained as arrow-points in other
cases. A rather asymmetrical and curious design is that ip.
Fig. 5 (Butte County), said to be "something turning^round."
This is combined with arrow-points also.

Wood in sticks or billets is shown on Plate XJJf, Fig. i
(Placer County), and again in Fig. 2 (El Dorado County). The
latter, especially, strongly recalls the big-ton'gtfe on Plate II,

IO Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. [Vol. XVII,

Pig. 4, and also the earthworm. A pair of tongs is said to
oe represented in Fig. 3 (Butte County), the allusion being
to the split sticks used for removing heated stones from the
fire in order to put them in the acorn-soup, for the purpose
of cooking it. In Fig. 4 (El Dorado County) we have a repre
sentation of beads, while the somewhat similar design on a
basket of much coarser make (Fig. 5, El Dorado County) is
said to be a trail or path.

This completes the list of designs known with any certainty ;
but the following designs, although for the most part unex
plained, are given, in order to have as large a collection as
possible for comparison.

On Plate XVI are one or two, the meaning of which is still
•a mystery. Fig. i (El Dorado County) may be either a hornet
or a tree. Fig. 2 (Nevada County) is completely unknown.
Fig. 3 (Butte County) is identical with the fern of Plate VIII,
Fig. 2, with the addition of the small triangles. Fig. 4 (Plu-
mas County) is' probably feather and arrow-point, although,
in the absence of definite statement to that effect, this identifi
cation must be regarded as only provisional. Plate XVII
also shows a number of designs the meaning of which is
unknown or uncertain. Figs, i, 2 (El Dorado County), are
probably partly finished water- snakes, while Fig. 3 (El Dorado
County) is apparently the feather (?), but very roughly
made. The significance of Figs. 4 (Placer County), 5 (Plumas
County), 6 (El Dorado County), is completely unknown, the
last strongly suggesting a more southern origin, perhaps,
with Fig. 3, in the Moquelumnian area. The curious and
intricate design appearing in Fig. 7 (Butte County) seems to
have arrow-points about the rim; but the main design is
entirely unexplained, inquiries failing to elicit any information
in regard to it. Fig. 8 (Plumas County) is of interest, for,
although unexplained, it seems to show the deer-gut design
so common among the Pit Rivers, and to be another case of
borrowing or copying a design from some other stock.

Having now described and considered in some detail the
various designs in use among the Maidu stock, there remain
several more general considerations suggested by the study

1902.] Dixon, Basketry Designs of California Indians. I 1

of the designs as a whole. In the first place, it is quite clear
that the designs are not rigidly fixed, but are subject to con
siderable variation. In some cases, as in the quail-tip (Plate
I), the feather (Plates X, XI), and the arrow-point (Plates
XII, XIII), the variation is effected chiefly by a different
arrangement of the characteristic features of the design, —
features which seem to remain quite constant throughout
the entire stock, and to be more or less easily recognizable in
all their modifications. In other cases, as, for example, the
grasshopper-foot (Plate VI), we have apparently two types:
Figs, i, 2, 3, forming one, and Fig. 4 the other. The first of
these types varies considerably, it is true, but may, I believe,
be regarded as substantially the same in intent. In cases of
this sort, where two or more different types for the same
design occur, we never find both types in use in the same
region apparently, either one or the other being consistently
used all through a given area.

As regards variation in design depending on differences in
weave, little can be said, since the very great majority of
baskets now made by the Maidu are of the coiled variety
alone. Only the pack-baskets are of the twined or woven
variety, and of these but few are now made. The grasshopper-
leg design on the pack-basket shown on Plate VI, Fig. 4, does
not occur, so far as known, on baskets of the coiled variety,
and this constitutes the only satisfactory case of woven-
basket designs. In the other instances of woven baskets
(Plate V, Fig. 4; Plate VII, Fig. 2; Plate XI, Fig. 3) there
is some question whether they are genuine Maidu baskets;
but, granting that they are all undoubtedly Maidu in their
origin, we have only the feather common to both coiled and
woven varieties, and this does not appear to differ to any
extent. From these few and rather unsatisfactory instances,
then, it would seem that the design was essentially the same,
whether on coiled or woven baskets.

To some slight extent there is evidence of a restriction of
certain designs to certain types of baskets; the quail, fish-
teeth, moth-miller, vine, and fern not occurring, so far as
known, on plaque-baskets or trays, but being restricted to

1 2 Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. [Vol. XVII,

soup-baskets only. On the other hand, the earthworm,
water-snake, milleped, feather, and arrow-point seem to be
used indiscriminately on baskets of both types.

In the arrangement and grouping of designs there is a
strongly marked preference for the spiral and zigzag line,
the designs running either in equidistant spirals from top to
bottom of the soup-baskets and in whorls on the plaques, or
in a series of "points" placed symmetrically about the centre
of the basket, forming a star. These differ as to the number
of points; but three or four, more generally the former, is
the rule. The arrangement of the design in a series of hori
zontal parallel bands is quite unusual, although it does occur
in a few examples.

The distribution of the designs within the area occupied by
the stock discloses one or two points of interest. Apparently
of universal distribution and also of most frequent use are the
quail-tip, feather, and arrow-point. One can hardly find a
family anywhere among whose baskets one of these designs is
not represented, or, perhaps, all. Less frequently used, but
also known to all the stock, are the earthworm (and the sim
ilar wood or big-tongue designs), milleped, grasshopper-leg,
etc. Of more local character, but still with a fairly wide dis
tribution, are such designs as the rattlesnake and water-snake,
confined apparently to the Southern Maidu; or the vine, in
use only by the northern sections. Still more local are many
of the other designs, such as the duck's wing, squirrel's foot,
fish-teeth, moth-miller, tree, flower, etc., which are, so far as
known, confined to single valleys or even villages. Of course,
one can never be certain that a design is of local occurrence
only ; for many designs have died out locally, in all probability,
or, even if still in use, the baskets on which they occur may
have been overlooked. Except so far as the first cause of error
is concerned, the distribution as here given is probably fairly
accurate, as a record was kept of all baskets which could be
found in every village and house visited, the whole number of
baskets seen amounting to several hundred. Owing to the
much smaller number of Indians in the southern part of the
Maidu region, it is not quite fair to compare the number of de-

1902.] Dixon, Basketry Designs of California Indians. 13

signs in use in the northern area with those in the southern ;
still, allowing for the scant population and the probability that
as a consequence several designs have here become locally ex
tinct, there seems to be a difference between the two areas.
The total number of designs found north of the Yuba River
is twenty-two (or twenty-four, including the two doubtful
instances); of these, ten are representations of animals, five
of plants, and seven of natural or artificial objects. South of
the Yuba, only sixteen designs were found, of which eight
represent animals; three, plants; and five, natural or artificial
objects. These figures would seem to show a slightly greater
paucity of designs in the southern section, with about the
same relative proportion of the different types of design. The
total number of designs in use by the stock as a whole amounts
to something over forty.

Taken as a whole, the designs of this stock would seem to be
characterized by a considerable conventionalization. In most
cases the intent of the design is not clear from mere inspection,
but must be explained before it can be understood. There are
one or two designs, however, which, in so far as the nature of
the material and the art will allow, are almost as realistic
representations of the objects as one could expect. Such,
for example, are the quail-tip, fish-teeth, milleped, feather,
etc. Here, however, the object is, as a rule, so extremely
simple, that, even although the design is a moderately good
representation, it might pass equally well as the representa
tion of something else. This "obscure realism," as it might
be rather contradictorily termed, seems to be of moderate
frequency in the designs.

In several instances, as, for example, in the linked parallelo
grams, what is virtually the same design receives different
explanations among different members of the stock. Such
designs are usually the most simple ones, and might be classed
with the obscurely realistic designs just referred to. The
bearing of these cases on the general problems of design will
be referred to again later.

One of the most striking characteristics of the Maidu, as
compared with other stocks, is the very strong tendency to

,

1 4 Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. [Vol. XVII,

put but one design on a basket. There are four or five cases,
in the seventy or more baskets here shown, in which more
than one design is used. This proportion is certainly too
large, the number of cases in which more than one design
occurs on a basket averaging more nearly three out of a
hundred. The distinctiveness of this characteristic will be
apparent as the designs of the other stocks are taken up.

To sum up, then, the characteristic features of Maidu
basketry-designs may be said to be the very large variety and
number, the frequency of animal designs and the unusual
predominance of plant designs, the considerable number of
designs in which there is a more or less obscure realism, the
strong tendency shown toward an arrangement in spiral or
zigzag lines, and the well-nigh universal practice of putting
but a single design on a basket.

PIT RIVER. — The Indians commonly known by this name,
and belonging to the Palainihan linguistic stock, occupy the
greater part of the valley and drainage basin of the Pit River
in northeastern California, and are the immediate northern
neighbors of the Maidu. The designs here given form but
a portion of the whole body of design known to the stock,
collections from this region not being as complete as from the
Maidu area to the south. It will be noticed, that, whereas
the Maidu make baskets of both the coiled and woven varieties
(although principally of the former), the Pit River baskets are
all, so far as known, of the woven type. Dividing the designs
into groups as far as possible, we may again begin with —

i. Animal and Plant Designs. — Among the many peculiar
and unique designs in use by these Indians is that known
as "mussel's tongue'.' (the fresh-water mussel), shown on
Plate XVIII, Figs, i, 2, 3. One of the commonest forms is
that in Fig. i, which has combined with it, as a rim around
the edge of the basket, the arrow-point. Fig. 2 shows another
form of the design, combined here with the stripe. In Fig.
3 the design appears again, here subordinated to the pine-
cone, represented by the hour-glass figures, which predomi
nate in the ornamentation.

The design in Fig.. 4 is known as "skunk," perhaps com-

1902.] Dixon, Basketry Designs of California Indians. I 5

bined' with arrow-point. Whether this is the track of the
animal, or refers to some part of it, or a marking, could not be
discovered. Strongly resembling some of the Maidu designs
is that known as "fish-tail," shown in Fig. 5, the larger
terminal triangle being apparently the characteristic feature.
The sharp zigzags in Fig. 6 represent a bent knee. Of much
greater frequency , it seems, is the design shown on Plate XIX ,
Figs. 1-4. Of these, Figs. 1,2, are declared to be the lizard,,
or lizard-foot, in Fig. 2 in combination with the diamond.
The characteristic motive of this design appears again in Fig.
3, here, however, explained as the eye. It seems probable,
however, that the central portion only of the figure is the eye,,
and that the border is again the lizard. In Fig. 4 the design
(the same as that in Fig. i ) is declared to be the quail. About
the rim of this basket we have the hill, or, as otherwise ex
plained, the bear's foot. This alternates with the mussel's-
tongue, seen here to the extreme right. Below the lizard or
quail design is another, in a series of points, about the very
bottom, this being known as the "meadow-lark's neck,""
being a representation of the collar, or V-shaped mark, on
the throat of the bird in question.

Suggesting somewhat the similarly named Maidu design
is the flying-geese pattern shown in Figs. 5, 6. The design is
simpler than the Maidu form, but, at least in Fig. 5, suggests
fairly well the appearance of geese in flight. Plate XX, Fig.
i, is also, probably, the same design, to which has been added
the pine-cone. The design in Fig. 2 is one of the few which are
representative of plants, this being said to be bushes or brush
of any kind. The only other plant, design is the pine-cone
already alluded to, shown in Fig. i and on Plate XVIII, Fig. 3.

2. Designs representing Natural or Artificial Objects. — On.
Plate XX, Figs. 3, 4, 6, we have what is called "intestines,"
or more specifically given sometimes as "deer-gut." There
seem to be two slightly different forms of this design, although
the continuous bent line seems to be the fundamental feature.
Figs. 3, 6, are said to be combinations of the deer-gut with
the arrow-point. Somewhat similar, superficially, is the deer-
rib shown in Fig. 5 , here said to be combined with the arrow-

1 6 Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. [Vol. XVII,

point, as in the case of the deer-gut. Both deer-rib and deer-
gut are very common designs, and may occur without the
accompaniment of the arrow-point. Without doubt, the gob
let-shaped form of Fig. 5 is not native, but is merely a copy
of similarly shaped objects seen in the possession of the whites.

Another design of very frequent occurrence, and susceptible
of several modifications, is that known as "deer-excrement,"
shown on Plate XXI, Figs, i, 2, 3, in the last instance to
gether with the so-called "rough " or " crooked " design. This
is rather strikingly suggestive of the simpler forms of the
Maidu feather, and is shown in Fig. 4 in combination with the
familiar arrow-point, which occurs again in Fig. 5.

Plate XXII shows several designs the meaning of which is
more or less in doubt. Fig. i is completely unknown. Fig. 2
is possibly the arrow-point, or perhaps flying geese ( ?). In Fig.
3 the design is, without doubt, the skunk-nose; while Fig. 4
is the arrow-point again. The design in Fig. 5 is explained
variously as lizard (compare Plate XIX, Figs. 1-4) and as
owl's claw. Fig. 6 is said to be flying geese, but the deter
mination is very doubtful.

In so far as may be judged from the material at hand, the
designs of this stock are subject to considerable variation in
the mode of arrangement, shown here especially in the case
of the deer-excrement and mussel's tongue. Variation de
pending on difference in make is here negligible, as no baskets
of the coiled type are made. So far as noted, there is
no restriction of certain patterns to certain types of basket.
In the arrangement and grouping of designs, there is, as in the
case of the Maidu, a very strong tendency toward spiral and
zigzag lines, with the addition of the use of vertical or radial
lines, as on Plate XVIII, Fig. 4; Plate XXI, Fig. i; Plate
XXII, Figs. 2, 5. Horizontal bands are rare, as in the case
of the Maidu. The question of the distribution of the designs
must wait for fuller material; but their relative frequency
within the small area visited shows that the most common are
the deer-rib, deer-gut, lizard, and owl's claw, followed closely
by the eye, deer-excrement, flying geese, and crooked or
zigzag lines

1902.] Dixon, Basketry Designs of CatffVt mtirTndians. I 7

Even in the limited area so far studied, it is noticeable that
in one or two cases, if not more, the same design receives a
different explanation from different individuals, which is con
trary to the rather remarkable uniformity of explanation
among the Maidu, over considerable areas. In the nature
of the designs there seems to be, perhaps, a slightly greater
tendency toward conventionalization than is to be seen
among the Maidu, and, as compared with these in the matter
of the number of designs on the basket, there is a marked in
crease in the tendency to use several designs instead of one.

From the foregoing, it would seem that, as a group, the
designs in use by this stock are characterized by a considerable
variety and number (falling considerably short of the Maidu,
however, in this regard), by the marked frequency of animal
designs (absence of snake designs) and the equally marked
infrequency of plant designs, by the considerable variation of
some designs within small areas, by a greater tendency toward
grouping several designs on a single basket, and, while prefer
ring the spiral or zigzag arrangement, varying this with that
in vertical and radial lines.

WINTUN. — The Copehan stock, to which these Indians be
long, occupies that portion of the Sacramento Valley lying
west of the river, from the mouth to the neighborhood of
Redding, north of. which it spreads considerably to the east,
occupying all the head-waters of the river, and extending
westward into the region of the Upper Trinity. The stock
thus covers a large area, and is the western neighbor of both
Maidu and Pit River peoples. As in the case of the latter,
the art of making coiled basketry seems not to be practised
by the Indians of the Copehan stock, at least not by the Wintun
branch. The designs here shown 1 are probably but a portion
of those in existence. Grouping them as far as possible into
classes, we have, —

i. Animal Designs. — On Plate XXIII, Fig. i, we have for
the body of the design the bent elbow, and about the base
arrow-points. It is probable that the points on the bent

1 The baskets here figured were obtained in the vicinity of the Sacramento River,
in the region above Red Bluff.

\ January ^ 1902] 2

1 8 Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. [Vol. XVII,

elbow are also arrow-points. The sticker's tail is shown in
Fig. 2. Almost identical with the design known to the Pit
River Indians as "deer-gut " is that shown in Fig. 3, here
explained as a water- snake ; while the rattlesnake's head is
represented in Fig. 4. The wolf's eye is shown in Fig. 5. An
obscure and rather complicated design, apparently, is that
known as " flying geese " (Fig. 6), which occurs in a somewhat
different form in Fig. 7. Here the body of the design is the
flying-geese pattern, while about the edge is a row of arrow-
points, and below, about the base, a row of rattlesnakes'
heads ( ?). Fig. 8 seems to have an upper row of arrow-points,
with the bear's foot below.

2. Designs representing Natural or Artificial Objects. — What
is called simply the "empty spool" is shown on Plate XXIV,
Fig. i. This explanation is far from satisfactory, but at
present no other can be given. Fig. 2 is given the same
explanation. The design on the basket in Fig. 3 is declared to
be " leaves strung along," and suggests at once the Maidu vine.
The deer-excrement occurs in Fig. 4, in a somewhat different
arrangement from that of either the Maidu or Pit River
Indians. The diagonal stripes of Fig. 5 are stated to be
"pulled around," alluding, apparently, to their spiral ar
rangement. Figs. 6, 7, are each explained as "striped;"
while Fig. 8 is known as "cross ways."

From the limited amount of material here presented, but
few reliable conclusions can be drawn. We may note, how
ever, that, in the matter of the arrangement of designs, while
spiral and zigzag lines are common and horizontal bands
are also quite frequent, vertical lines as used by the Pit
River Indians, although sometimes met with, are rare. Of
the thirteen designs here shown, more than half are animal
designs, and but one is regarded as the representation of a
plant. Although, as a rule, but one design is placed on a
basket, yet we find instances where two or three are thus used.

The general characteristics of the stock would seem to be
much the same as those of the Pit River or Palainihan; the
chief difference being in the relative frequency here of snake
designs, in the tendency to extremes in the grouping of the

1902.] Dixon, Basketry Designs of California Indians. 19

designs (the rule being either one or many), and in the dis
tinctly greater tendency toward arrangement in horizontal
bands.

YANA. — Indians of this stock are now so few in number,
that it is difficult to secure any material of which one can be
certain that it is native to the stock. In former times this
stock occupied the region between Little Cow Creek and Mill
Creek in Shasta and Tehama Counties, being surrounded by
the Maidu, Wintun, and Pit River Indians. At present, but
a handful of these interesting people survive, and they are
much mixed with the Pit Rivers. On Plate XXV, Figs. 1,2,
are two baskets, of which only the second can be regarded as
showing with any certainty a native design. In Fig. i we
have the wolf's eye, recalling somewhat the similarly named
design among the Wintun. The design in Fig. 2 is said to be
a house. Inasmuch as the basket itself is of a different shape
and type from those seen among the Pit River or Wintun, i€
seems more probable that we have here a real Yana design.
Both were, however, declared, by the half Yana, half Pit
River Indian from whom they were obtained, to be real native
designs.

DESIGNS OF THE SOUTHEASTERN AREA.

The following baskets, obtained in Amador and Calaveras
Counties, from Indians belonging to the Moquelumnian stock,
are introduced here only for comparison of the designs as.
such, inasmuch as the meaning of the designs was unfortu
nately not obtained.

On Plate XXV, Fig. 3, we have a very simple design, sug
gesting the Maidu earthworm and the Pit River and Wintun
deer-excrement. Fig. 4 would seem to connect itself with the-
water-snake and rattlesnake designs of the Southern Maidu..
On Plate XXVI, Fig. i, is a design comparable, perhaps, with
the eye and diamond; while in Fig. 2 the quail-tip is exactly
reproduced. Fig. 3, again, is comparable to several of the
designs given in the previous pages. Of a quite different type,
however, is the design in Fig. 4, — a design seemingly rather
closely related to designs in use by Indians of the Mariposan

2O Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. [Vol. XVII,

stock farther to the south. In Fig. 5, also, we have a highly
characteristic use of the simple zigzag, — a design which, in this
shape, seems also to be more southern than northern in its
affinities.

DESIGNS OP THE POMO GROUP.

The Indians of this stock occupied a considerable area to
the west of the Wintun tribes of the Sacramento Valley,
spreading over most of the Russian River region, and between
it and the coast. Like the Maidu, the Porno or Kulanapan
tribes make both coiled and woven basketry, and their baskets
have, as has been shown by Mason,1 a remarkable number of
forms. The Maidu were accustomed to decorate their baskets,
to some extent, with interwoven feathers, and pendent and
fixed bits of shell and beads, but never, apparently, reached
anything like the perfection of the art to which the Porno at
tained. Owing to the great extent to which several designs
are combined on baskets from this stock, it is not possible to
separate the baskets into classes as before ; but to some slight
extent we may preserve the same order of treatment.

Apparently quite common among the Porno, is the quail or
quail-tip design shown on Plate XXVII, Fig. i. The design
is here combined with the red mountains, these being the
triangular figures; while the quail- tip is shown in the inter
vening space. A different treatment of the quail-tip is that
in Fig. 2, the design here forming a fringe along the edge of
A the red mountains, and again slightly different in Fig. 3. In
Fig. 6 the quail-tip occurs only on one side of the mountain
design. The red mountains occur again in Fig. 4, in com
bination with the quail-tip and also with the spots on a fawn,
represented by the linked parallelograms. Similar, except
that the red mountains are in a double row, is the design in
Fig. 5 ; and here, again, the quail-tip appears about the base,
although in this form suspiciously similar to the zigzag on
some of the pack-baskets. Fig. 7 contains the red mountains
and also the buckeye (compare quail-tip). Red mountains

1 O. T. Mason, The Technique of Aboriginal Basketry (American Anthropologist,
N.S., Vol. Ill, pp. 109-129).

1902.] Dixon, Basketry Designs of California Indians. 21

occur again in Fig. 8, with the addition of the grasshopper-
shoulder, and with the " meshes of a fishnet" about the ex
treme edge. Still another form of mountain is shown in
Fig. 9, in combination with leaves about the base.

The familiar quail-tip appears again on Plate XXVIII, Fig.
i, here in combination with crossing trails; the same design
apparently occurring again in Fig. 6. In Fig. 2 the crossing
trails occur once more, combined with what is called " zig
zag." The remaining designs in this group are not explained.
Fig. 4 is strikingly suggestive of the Maidu flower design, and
is here executed with great symmetry. Figs. 5,7, are appar
ently to be regarded as local variations of the red mountains.

Associated, apparently, with the zigzag, we have the quail-
tip again on Plate XXIX, Fig. i, the quail-tip here occurring
as a row about the edge. Fig. 2 surely, and Fig. 3 probably,
is the zigzag alone; the latter being an especially effective
treatment. A very good example of the arrow-point is that
shown in Fig. 4. In Fig. 5 the crossing trails again make
their appearance.

The large woven baskets of the pack-basket and storage
types show a profusion of ornament ; a very considerable num
ber of designs, or repetitions of the same design, occurring
on a single basket. On Plate XXX, Fig. i, for example, the
upper row, immediately about the edge, is meshes in a fishnet,
and consists of a succession of parallelograms or squares. This
is succeeded, in passing toward the base, successively by zig
zag, red mountains, half arrow-points, red mountains and
zigzag combined, zigzag, red mountains, and zigzag. In Fig.
2 the design is not explained; but in Fig. 3 we have again a
long series, beginning at the top with meshes in a fishnet, zig
zag, red mountains and zigzag, red mountains and zigzag, red
mountains, zigzag. A simpler ornamentation is that on Plate
XXXI, Fig. i, in which the red mountains are arranged in a
spiral, and the meshes in a fishnet again occur in a row about
the rim. Fig. 2 shows again a combination of designs, beginning
as usual with the meshes in a fishnet, and followed by zigzag,
meshes in a fishnet, zigzag, zigzag, and lastly, apparently, the
meshes in a fishnet again, although this is not certain. The

2 2 Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. [Vol. XVII,

designs on the two baskets on Plate XXXII are not explained,
but seem to be combinations of red mountains and zigzags,
with the usual meshes in a fishnet about the rim.

The large baskets used for storage, etc., show essentially
the same designs. On Plate XXXIII, Fig. i, we have the
familiar red mountains and zigzag designs arranged in spirals.
These occur again in Fig. 2, with the addition, probably,
of arrow-points. The red mountains are also the dominant
motive in Figs. 3, 4; the latter having again the zigzag, and
presumably the arrow-point. All four of these baskets seem
to have the meshes in a fishnet about the rim. Several
designs, arranged in horizontal bands instead of spirals,
are shown on Plate XXXIV, Figs. 1,2. Fig. i has about the
rim the meshes in a fishnet, and then, in succession, buckeye-
trees, zigzag, red mountains, red mountains, crow's tracks.
In Fig. 2, a very large basket, the designs are much the same,
and occur in about the same order; viz., meshes in a fishnet,
an unknown pattern, buckeye-tree, zigzag, red mountains, red
mountains. Returning again to the spiral arrangement in
Fig. 3, we find crossing tracks, zigzag, and red mountains,
with the usual rim design. The meaning of the interlacing
diamond figures is not given.

Two other large baskets of this same type are figured on
/ Plate XXXV. Fig. i has the usual rim design followed by

zigzag, red mountains, crow's tracks, and meshes in a fishnet.
In Fig. 2 we have a striking treatment of the zigzag; the
break in the design, known as the " dau," being filled with an
other figure. The plaque-baskets again present the same
designs. On Plate XXXVI, Fig. i, we see the arrow-point.
^ f/In Fig. 2 we have, perhaps, the crossing tracks, strongly sug
gestive, however, of the empty spool among the Win tun, and
the pine-cone among the Pit Rivers. Several varieties of the
zigzag are shown in Fig. 4, apparently; and in Fig. 3 we find
a simple treatment of the quail- tip once more.

From the preceding description of some of the designs in
use among Indians of this stock, several general conclusions
seem warranted. Variation in the designs is more or less
noticeable, the zigzag having apparently the greatest number

1902.] Dixon, Basketry Designs of California Indians. 23

of divergent forms. Variations in design, due to differences in
weave, may perhaps be noted in one or two cases; as, for
example, the strongly rectangular form of the zigzag in the
two coiled baskets shown on Plate XXIX, Figs, i, 3, a form
which seems to be wanting in baskets of the woven variety,
where the angles are more acute. There is, apparently, a
restriction of certain designs to certain weaves, inasmuch as
the quail-tip, leaf, the particular form of crossing trails shown
on Plate XXIX, Fig. 5, etc., are not seen on any of the baskets
of the woven variety, except in the case of the quail-tip on
Plate XXXVI, Fig. 3. The zigzag, also, seems very much
more common on baskets of the woven than on those of the
coiled variety.

In the arrangement of designs, the very frequent use of
horizontal or concentric bands on all baskets of the woven
type is the most noticeable, this form of arrangement occur
ring on half of the baskets here shown. In the case of coiled
baskets, the arrangement in spirals, or vertical lines, seems to
prevail. If we compare the number and character of the
designs found on the forty or more Porno baskets here shown,
with those found on baskets of the other stocks here described,
we are at once struck by the comparative paucity of designs ;
only eleven being here shown. In another series of thirty-
five Porno baskets, about six additional designs were
found, giving a total of seventeen designs (from seventy-
five baskets), as compared with thirteen in the case of the
Wintun (from sixteen baskets), sixteen from the Pit Rivers
(from thirty baskets), and more than forty from the Maidu
(from seventy-nine baskets). Not only is this paucity of
designs as a whole very noticeable, but the extraordinarily
small number of animal designs is remarkable, only three of
the designs here shown being traced to animal motives ; while,
on the other hand, more than half of the whole number of
designs relate to natural or artificial objects. In all the other
stocks here described, the preponderance of animal motives
was very marked. In the Porno, then, we have a people
who had developed the art of feather decoration to a very
high degree, but who were at the same time far behind the

24 Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. [Vol. XVII,

other stocks in the number and variety of the designs used.
Perhaps the energy devoted to the elaboration of feather
ornament drew the attention away from the development of
new designs. But, be that as it may, the greatest manual
v^xL^ dexterity and technical skill were here combined with the
greatest artistic poverty.

A feature which differentiates the designs of this stock from
all the others spoken of, is the existence in many cases — more
particularly on baskets of the woven type, with spiral designs
— of a gap in the design, filled by a design of a different sort.
This break in the design, which is known as "dau," is said to
be for the purpose of "letting the soul escape." The same
break is found, if one may judge from a very few specimens
only, also on the baskets of the Yuki, living immediately
north of the Porno, and in both cases suggests at once com
parison with the similar openings left in designs on basketry
and pottery in the Southwestern States. There are so few
designs representing animals, that one can draw no very satis
factory conclusions as to the extent to which conventionaliza
tion has here progressed. It would seem, from what little
material we have, however, that it had reached about the same
stage as among the Maidu. As compared with the almost
universal practice of the Maidu, of placing but one design on a
, basket, we find here exactly the opposite tendency; several
' or rePe"titions of the same design, being the almost
universal rule, the preference being for a considerable number,
such as four or five.

The designs used by Indians of this stock, then, would seem
to be characterized, as a whole, by their small number, by
the great infrequency of animal designs, by the tendency to
arrange the designs in a series of horizontal or concentric
bands and to place a large number of designs on the same
basket, and last, but not least in importance, by the occur
rence of the "dau," or gap in the design, in many cases, and
by the great development of feather decoration, which art was
here carried to its greatest perfection.

Having described and attempted to characterize separately

1902.] Dixon, Basketry Designs of California Indians. 25

the designs of these several stocks, there remain certain
generalizations which may be made from the material as
a whole. It will be apparent, even from the most casual
observation of the designs here shown, that there are a num
ber of instances in which members of two or more different
stocks have used the same design, or designs but very slightly
differing from one another, sometimes with the same, some
times with different meanings. Questions, therefore, very
naturally arise as to the extent to which this goes, whether
it is due to borrowing or to independent origin, and, if to
borrowing, between which tribes the borrowing has been
most extensive.

If the different designs here shown be tabulated without
reference to the meanings offered for them, we find that there
are really surprisingly few exact coincidences between tribe
and tribe. Overlooking minor variations in form and arrange
ment, it is only the so-called " arrow-point, " the linked paral
lelograms (variously explained as earth worm, wood, excrement,
etc.), the crossing trails, and perhaps the hour-glass figure
(known variously as pine-cone, moth, spool, etc.), which can
be said to be found among all or most of the stocks here dis
cussed. The quail-tip may, perhaps, be added to these, and
probably the feather; but beyond these there are none which
are of very wide distribution. It is noticeable, also, that it
is only in the case of the quail-tip and arrow-point that the
meaning of these more or less common designs is the same in
different stocks. Except for the cases just noted, the chief ex
amples of identity or similarity occur, as would be expected,
between contiguous stocks. Thus the Southern Maidu show
some points of similarity with the Moquelumnian stock,
which, in its turn, seems allied to the Mariposan stock
bordering it to the south. On the north, the Pit Rivers and
Maidu seem to have some designs in common, especially if
we admit as Maidu the two or three baskets of somewhat
doubtful provenience, to which reference has already been
made. The Pit Rivers, in their turn, show unmistakable
relations with the Klamath Indians farther north. The
Wintun, at least as far as at present studied, seem to be more

26 Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. [Vol. XVII,

closely affiliated to the Pit Rivers than to the Maidu, or other
stocks with which they come in contact. The Porno show
one or two curious similarities with the Maidu (quail-tip, buck
eye-tree, squirrel's foot), with whom, however, they were not
in contact.

If we attempt to trace individual designs, we find that the
lines of affiliation become much confused, and lead now here,
now there. With material from the other stocks as full as
that from the Maidu, it may be possible to trace in more detail
the distribution and wanderings of some designs; but at
present such an attempt would be premature. It was stated
at the outset of this paper, that several fairly well-marked
types or type areas might be distinguished, within which
the designs were more or less coherent in their character.
The time has not yet come for any detailed discussion of
these, or for the final marking-out of the limits and bound
aries of such regions. Yet I believe that we may, with some
degree of certainty, regard the Maidu, Pit Rivers, Kla-
math, Yana (?), and Wintun, at least, as forming a group
•characterized by great variety and number of designs, pre
dominance of animal and plant motives, etc., differentiating
this group from the Pomo on the one hand (which exhibit
such a paucity of designs and lack of animal motives) and the
Southeastern Group on the other hand, which, simply from
the designs as such, seems more related to the types of South-
•ern California. Material in regard to the Northwestern Type
or Group is not yet at hand; but, from a considerable number
of baskets seen, it is clear that its affinities are with the
Northeastern Group, and especially with the Wintun and Pit
Rivers. Yet, in spite of rather close affinities to these, the
Northwestern Group seems to have sufficient character to
stand alone. All definitive conclusions as to type areas and
relationships must wait, however, for fuller material.

To return to the matter of the separate stocks whose designs
have been here discussed, we find that, as a whole, it is clear
that each stock is in possession of a body of designs the
greater portion of which seem to be peculiar to the stock and
characteristic of it; so much so, that the occurrence of any

1902.] Dixon, Basketry Designs of California Indians. 27

one of these designs on a basket is almost sufficient evidence
as to the stock, and even, in some cases, the part of the
stock, whence it came. In addition to this body of strictly
characteristic designs, there are some, generally only a few,
however, which the stock in question shares with some other
stock or stocks, usually those with which it is in contact. That
in such cases the fact of the common possession of designs is
to be explained as due to borrowing or copying of the designs
of one stock by basket-makers of the other, is most probable,
and any other explanation seems unnecessary. In the case
of tribes which may show other evidences of close relation
ship, such instances may be due to inheritance from a common
ancestor; but, until good evidence of this close relationship is
forthcoming, such community of design can easiest be ex
plained by borrowing. That the Indians themselves recognize
the existence of such borrowing is shown by cases similar to
the design on Plate XIV, Fig. i, where it was expressly stated
that the design had been taken from a type of basket common
to the south. In this case, no attempt seems to have been
made to explain the design, or invent a meaning for it.

As a rule, borrowed designs do not spread far, and are often
confined to that part of the borrowing stock which lies directly
along the line of contact. There are a few designs, however,
which are of wider distribution, common not only to adja-
cent stocks or portions of stocks, but occurring here and
there from Southern California to Washington and British
Columbia. A design of this sort would be the arrow-point, for
instance. Must we. in such cases, regard the wide distribu
tion of the design as due to dissemination or to borrowing? As
a rule, designs thus widely spread are extremely simple, and,
owing to this, receive different explanations in different places,
although sometimes, as in the case of the arrow-point, the
same explanation is given at points widely separated. In
view of the very simple nature, as a rule, of these widely
spread designs, it would seem more probable that they have
been invented locally and independently, and that in such
cases we have no need to call in the hypothesis of contact or
dissemination. That widely separated members of the same

28 Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. [Vol. XVII,

race should independently develop similar designs, even under
different environment, is, a priori, more probable than that
members of two totally distinct races living on different con
tinents should do so. Yet a most remarkable example of
this has been noted recently. Several of the negro tribes of
East Africa, living to the south of Lake Victoria Nyanza,
are most expert makers of coiled basketry. A considerable
collection of these baskets is to be found in the rich collections
of the Konigliche Museum fur Volkerkunde in Berlin; and,
having been struck by the remarkable similarity of the designs
to those of the Maidu, permission was very kindly given
to have several of the baskets photographed for the purpose
of comparison here. On Plate XXXVII, seven of these East
African baskets are shown; and the designs, the meaning of
which is unfortunately unknown, may be compared with
several Maidu designs already described. With the feather
(Plate X, Fig. 3; Plate XI, Fig. 3), Fig. i may be compared.
The similarity of Figs. 2, 3, to the vine (Plate VIII, Fig. 2,
etc.), is so close as to be very striking; while the practical
identity of Fig. 4 with the water-snake on Plate IV, Figs. 4, 5,
is even more startling. The earthworm or deer-excrement
design finds its counterpart in Fig. 7; whereas Figs. 5, 6,
especially the latter, show close similarity to the Maidu flower
as shown on Plate VIII, Fig. 4. The gr.eat similarity, not to
say identity, of these designs, is most striking, and, as in this
case we have no possible suggestion of borrowing or contact,
we are forced to regard the instance as a remarkable example
of the independent origin of similar designs by peoples not only
antipodal in their location, but of entirely distinct races.
Since, therefore, even in such extreme cases, simple designs
may be independently devised, it is quite possible that such
widely distributed designs as the arrow-point may here be
explained in the same way, and we may not need to look to
dissemination or borrowing to explain them.

While the facts here presented have some value and interest
in and for themselves, they have also a significance in the light
which they may throw on the general theories of art and the
development of design in general. That the geometric designs

1902.] Dixon, Basketry Designs of California Indians. 29

in use, for purposes of decoration and ornament, by savage
tribes in all parts of the world, have a significance and a well-
recognized meaning, has within the last few years been abun
dantly proved. The fact that such rigid and geometrical
figures were thus in reality significant, and were representa
tions of animals, plants, and other objects and phenomena,
led at once to discussions as to whether the designs in question
were in their origin realistic or decorative ; whether, to quote
from a recent admirable presentation of the whole question,1
"original pictures were conventionalized into decorative sym
bolism," or whether "original ornament was expanded into
symbolic decoration." In the paper here referred to, Kroeber
concludes, starting from a study of Arapaho design, that we
are not justified in regarding these designs as the outcome of
either of these tendencies alone, but rather as a fusion of both.
It is contended, that, in the mind of primitive man, realism
and decoration are not differentiated, and that it is only with
increased cultural development that a gradual differentiation
of these two tendencies is brought about, until, in the end,
they may become almost if not quite distinct. In the case of
savages, moreover, the pictographic element may also come
in, and this, with other tendencies, serves to complicate
a situation already by no means simple. All of this, then,
leads us to the conclusion that any such phenomenon as art
is not to be ascribed in its origin to any single cause, but
rather to the interaction of a multiplicity of causes; the
relative importance of each as a factor varying in different
cases and with different peoples.

We should, then, expect to find instances in which the
balance between the two opposing tendencies of "realistic
symbolism" and "decorative conventionalism" would not be
as perfect as in the case of the Arapaho, and examples
where the tendency either toward realism or decoration
would preponderate. While, in most cases, the basketry
designs from Washington and British Columbia, described by
Farrand,2 are distinctly geometric, and conventionalized to

1 A. L. Kroeber, Decorative Symbolism of the Arapaho (American Anthropologist,
N.S., Vol. Ill, pp. 308-337).

* L. Farrand, Basketry Designs of the Salish Indians (Memoirs American Museum
of Natural History, Vol. II, pp. 391-399).

3O Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. [Vol. XVII,

such an extent that one must needs be told their significance
before he can form any idea as to the object intended to be
represented, yet one or two designs occur within this area,
in which the figures of men, of horses, dogs, etc., are repre
sented with sufficient realism to be recognized almost at a
glance. Others, on the other hand, as for example the flying
birds (particularly the form shown in Fig. 318),' are conven
tionalized so slightly, that one notices the accuracy of repre
sentation when once the meaning and intent of the design is
explained. In such case it would seem that the realistic ten
dency is greater than in Arapaho art ; the purely decorative
factor being less conspicuous, although by no means absent.

The designs here shown, I am tempted to regard as occupy-
a place about midway between the balance of Arapaho
art and the somewhat preponderant realism of the Salish
designs. We do not find here any such realistic figures as
those of the men, dogs, and horses found farther north; but
I believe we may class a few of the California designs with the
flying-bird type, where, once the intent is known, the accuracy
of representation (always bearing in mind the limitations
of material) is quite striking. Thus, in the case of the
Maidu, the quail-tip, fish-teeth, milleped, flower, and feather
have been so little conventionalized, that, although each and
all are repeated and joined to form a pattern clearly decorative
in character, once the significance of the design is given, one
cannot but observe the all but realistic manner in which the
object is portrayed. Many of the other designs are to some
extent of a similar character; while others, of course, are so
thoroughly conventionalized that any resemblance they may
once have had to the object they are declared to represent
has completely disappeared.

This tendency to what might be called a "hidden" or
"obscure realism " seems more characteristic of the Maidu than
of the other stocks here discussed, all of which, it would seem,
show a greater conventionalization. It is possible that the
fact of the Maidu having so astonishingly large a number of
designs, and so large a proportion of animal and plant motives ,

1 Basketry Designs of the Salish Indians, p. 304, Figs. 317, 318.

1902.] Dixon, Basketry Designs of California Indians. 31

may have some bearing on the question. That so large a
number of designs, referred in such overwhelming proportion
to animals or plants, should not owe their origin and devel
opment more to the realistic than to the purely decorative
tendency, seems unlikely; and while we have not here, as in
the case of the Salish flying birds, any variants which are
distinctly more realistic, it would seem not unreasonable to-
expect that they had existed. Here, however, we enter on
the domain of pure speculation, which in such matters is
exceedingly unsafe. On the whole, then, taking all the cir
cumstances into consideration, the designs here discussed may
be regarded as occupying a plane about midway between the
designs of the Salish and the Arapaho.

It would be of considerable interest in this connection to
know the meaning of the designs on the African baskets
previously spoken of. In the absence of any information ,
we cannot say a design identical with the Maidu form is in
this case the result of a similar relative importance of the two-
chief factors in primitive art. From the extremely simple
character of these and all other designs on baskets from these
African tribes, it seems possible that we have here, not a
slight preponderance of realism, as in the Maidu and still more
in the Salish, but rather an equilibrium, or even a preponder
ance on the other side ; realism being subordinated somewhat
to the purely decorative tendency.

From the material here presented, then, as a whole, we may
conclude, that, in so far as it has a bearing on the theories of the
origin and development of art in general, it tends to confirm
the belief, that in the mind of primitive man no design is ££-£**•
either purely realistic or decorative, that all designs are to be
ascribed in their origin to the interaction of both factors ; now
one, now the other, being in ascendancy. The great number
and variety of designs in use by the stocks as a whole would
seem to be the effect, partly, of a concentration of artistic
effort upon a single type of art. On the other hand, the
paucity of designs among the Porno shows, again, the effect of
such concentration ; feather ornamentation here being exalted
to first place, thus turning the attention away from the

3 2 Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. [Vol. XVII.]

development of new designs. And lastly, just as we find, in the
case of mythology, that myths may be borrowed and trans
mitted from tribe to tribe, so designs may be copied, and
disseminated from one tribe to another, perhaps for con
siderable distances. Just as, in the case of myths, we can be
sure of such dissemination only when we have to deal with a
moderately complex tale whose component parts must recur
in the same form and order, so can we be sure of dissemination
of designs, only when we have a design which is not too simple.
Should we find instances, as I believe we may, where in
different regions the same moderately complex design occurs,
then we should be justified in regarding the coincidence of
design as due to transmission : on the other hand, where the
design is of a simple character, there seems good reason to
believe it possible that it has originated independently.
Although, from the data at present available, we can only
surmise development and migration of designs in a few cases,
it seems probable, that, with increased material from all the
tribes in the Pacific coast region, we may be able to show,
that, in a number of instances, designs extending over a con
siderable area, or even quite widely separated, have in reality
a common origin.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE I.

MAIDU BASKETS.

FIG. i .—Basket with quail-tip design. Butte County. Height, n
cm. Cat. No. ffa.

FIG. 2. — Basket with quail- tip design. Placer County. Height, 18
cm. Cat, No. T££B.

FIG. 3. — Basket with quail-tip design. Placer County. Height, 17
cm. Cat. No. Tf|¥.

FIG. 4. — Basket with duck's-wing design. Plumas County. Diameter,
43 cm. Cat. No. ffo.

FIG. 5. — Basket with "eye" design. Plumas County. Diameter, 47.5
cm. Cat. No. AV

LI.ETIN A. M. X. H.

VOL. XVII, PLATE I.

S

M AIDU BASKETS.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE II.

MAIDU BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with earthworm design. El Dorado County. Height.
6.5 cm. Cat. No.

FIG. 2. — Basket with earthworm design. Butte County. Diameter,
41.5 cm. Cat. No. T5¥°^.

FIG. 3. — Basket with earthworm design. El Dorado County. Height,
20 cm. Cat. No. T|fT.

FIG. 4. — Basket with "big-tongues" design. Butte County. Height,
22.5 cm. Cat. No. T5^°T.

FIG. 5. — -Basket with gray- squirrel' s-foot design. Butte County.
Height, 20.5 cm. Cat. No.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE III.

MAIDU BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with rattlesnake design. El Dorado County. Height,
27.5 cm. Cat. No. jf^y.

FIG. 2. — Basket with water-snake design. El Dorado County. Di
ameter, 36.5 cm. Cat. No. T||,,.

FIG. 3. — Basket with rattlesnake design. Placer County. Height,
36.5 cm. Cat. No. Tf°6-

FIG. 4. — Basket with fish- teeth design. Butte County. Height, 26
cm. Cat. No. A°«.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE IV.

MAIDU BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with milleped design. El Dorado County. Height,
15 cm. Cat. No.

FIG. 2. — Basket with milleped design. Butte County. Height, 10.5
cm. Cat. No. /^.

FIG. 3. — Basket with fly design. Placer County. Diameter, 3=^.5 cm.
Cat. No. TJfc.

FIG. 4. — Basket with water-snake design. El Dorado County. Height
33.5 cm. Cat. No. T|fa.

FIG. 5.— Basket with water-snake design. El Dorado County. Height,
50.5 cm. Cat. No. Tff7.

I.LETIN A. M. N. H.

VCL. XVII, PLATE IV.

J

MAIDU BASKET?.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE V.

MAIDU BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with butterfly design. Btitte County. Diameter,
15 cm. Cat. No. Tf^.

FIG. 2. — Basket with butterfly design. Butte County. Height, 26.5

FIG. 3. — Basket with raccoon design. Butte County. Height, 10.5
cm. Cat. No. gfa.

FIG. 4.— Basket with design of flying geese below; on the rim, moun
tains. Plumas County. Height, 47 cm. Cat. No. f£.

FIG. 5. — -Basket with moth-miller design. Placer County. Height,
48.5 cm. Cat. No. Tf^T.

JLI.ETIN A. M. N. H.

VOL. XVII, PLATE V.

jr

MAIDU BASKETS.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE VI.

MAIDU BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with grasshopper-leg design. Nevada County.
Height, 26.5 cm. Cat. No. Tff¥.

FIG. 2. — Basket with grasshopper-leg design. El Dorado Count}*.
Height, 41 cm. Cat. No. Tf^.

FIG. 3. — Basket with grasshopper-leg design. Plumas County.

Height, 7.5 cm. Cat. No. J&.

FIG. 4. — Basket with grasshopper-leg design. Butte County. Height,
60 cm. Cat. No.

3in.LETiN A. M. N. H.

VOL. XVII, PLATE VI.

I

MAIDU BASKETS.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE VII.

MAIDU BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with plant design. Butte County. Height, 32.5 cm.
Cat. No. ffV

FIG. 2. — Basket with vine design. Plumas County. Height, 54 cm.
Cat. No. AV

BULLETIN A. M. N. H.

VOL. XVII, PLATE VII.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE VIII.

MAIDU BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with vine design. Btitte County. Height, 23 cm.
Cat. No. fl^

FIG. 2. — Basket with brake design. Butte County. Height, 25.75
cm. Cat. No. ¥BF°5.

FIG. 3. — Basket with design of a sugar-pine (probably). Butte
County. Diameter, 31 cm. Cat. No. Tf$?.

FIG. 4. — Basket with flower design. Butte County. Height, 22.5 cm.
Cat. No.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE IX.

MAIDU BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with yellow-pine design. El Dorado County. Height,
10.5 cm. Cat. No. Tf§^.

FIG. 2. —Basket with design below of pine-cones; on the rim, of moun
tains. Plumas County. Height, 48 cm. Cat. No. /T°¥.

FIG. 3. — Basket with black-oak design. El Dorado County. Height,
1 8 cm. Cat. No.

FIG. 4.— Basket with white-oak design. El Dorado County. Height,
20.25 cm- Cat. No. Tff5.

FIG. 5. — -Basket with design of bushes. Plumas County. Height, 13.5
cm. Cat. No. /T°T.

FIG. 6. — -Basket with design of bushes or flowers. Plumas County.
Height, 12 cm. Cat. No. ,%.

I.ETIN A. M. N. H.

VOL. XVII, PLATE IX.

J

4

MAIDU BASKETS.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE X.

MAIDU BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with arrow-feather design. El Dorado County.
Height, 8.25 cm. Cat. No. T|fg.

FIG. 2. — Basket with arrow-feather design. Butte County. Height,
23 cm. Cat. No. T5g°a.

FIG. 3. — Basket with arrow- feather design. Butte County. Diameter,
44.5 cm. Cat. No. T5?V

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XL

MAIDU BASKETS.

FIG. T. — Basket with arrow-feather design. Butte County. Height,
12 cm. Cat. No. ,Bff°T.

FIG. 2. — Basket with arrow-feather and quail- tip design. Plumas
County. Height, 12.5 cm. Cat. No. •££..

FIG. 3. — Basket with arrow-feather design. Plumas County. Height,
44 cm. Cat. No. //,.

FIG. 4. — Basket with arrow- feather design. Plumas County. Height,
24 cm. Cat. No. /&.

FIG. 5. — Basket with arrow-feather and quail-tip design. Plumas
County. Height, 16 cm. Cat. No. T{$n.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XII.

MAIDU BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with arrow-point design. Placer County. Diameter,
15 cm. Cat. No. jff,.

FIG. 2. — Basket with arrow-point design. Plumas County. Diameter,
36 cm. Cat. No. £°v

FIG. 3. — Basket with arrow-point design. El Dorado County. Height,
9 cm. Cat. No. yfjh.

FIG. 4. — Basket with arrow-point design. Butte County. Diameter,
46.5 cm. Cat. No. Tf§5.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XIII.

MAIDU BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with arrow -point design. Plumas County. Height,
11.5 cm. Cat. No. /F°T.

FIG. 2. — Basket with arrow-point design. El Dorado County. Diam
eter, 31 cm. Cat. No. Tff5.

FIG. 3. — Basket with arrow-point design. Butte County. Diameter,
45.5 cm. Cat. No. T|^.

FIG. 4.— Basket with arrow-point design. El Dorado County. Height,
ii cm. Cat. No. Tffg.

FIG. 5. — Basket with arrow-point design. Plumas County. Diam
eter, 44.5 cm. Cat. No. F5T\.

TIN A."M. N. H.

VOL. XVIT, PLATE XIII

4

MAIDU BASKETS.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XIV.

MAIDU BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with design, on the rim, of arrow-point; below, a pat
tern of unknown significance. Plumas County. Height,
19 cm. Cat. No. J&-

FIG. 2. — Basket with diamond design. Butte County. Height, 21.5
cm. Cat. No. TfgT.

FIG. 3. — Basket with design of animal tracks. Butte County. Height,
22.5 cm. Cat. No. T5T\.

FIG. 4. — Basket with mountain-and-cloud design. Plumas County.
Height, 11.5 cm. Cat. No. gfo.

FIG. 5. — Basket with design of "something turning round" and
arrow-points. Butte County. Height, 16 cm. Cat. No.

LBTIN A. M. N. H.

VOL. XVII, PLATE XIV.

3

\

MAIDU BASKETS.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XV.

MAIDU BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with design of wood in billets. Placer County.
Height, 13.5 cm. Cat. No. T|f^.

FIG. 2. — Basket with design of wood in billets. El Dorado County.
Height, 20 cm. Cat. No. Tf§8.

FIG. 3. — Basket with design of a pair of tongs. Butte County. Height,
27 cm. Cat. No. Tf JT.

FIG. 4. — Basket with bead design. El Dorado County. Height, 13.5
cm. Cat. No. Tfff.

FIG. 5. — Basket with bead design. El Dorado County. Height, 11.5
cm. Cat. No. >.

LLETIN A. M. N. H.

VOL. XVII, PLATE XV.

MAIDU BASKETS

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XVI.

MAIDU BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with design representing either a hornet or a tree.
El Dorado County. Height, 19 cm. Cat. No. Tfy^.

FIG. 2. — Basket with design of unknown significance. Nevada County.
Height, 29.5 cm. Cat. No. yfy^.

.*-i>-"» ' . •***. *•.."'

;'.,.=%£ .* '"x . ^ •"'"'

FIG. 3, — Basket with design of unknown significance. Butte County.
Height, 17 cm. Cat. No. T87V

FIG. 4. — Basket with feather and arrow-point design (probably).
Plumas County. Diameter, 33.5 cm. Cat. No. ^°f,.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XVII.

MAIDU BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with water-snake (?) design. El Dorado County.
Height, ii err. Cat. No.

FIG. 2. — Basket with water-snake (?) design. El Dorado County.
Height, 10 cm. Cat. No. T|f?.

FIG. 3. — Basket with feather (?) design. El Dorado County. Height,
11.5 cm. Cat. No. yf^o-

FIG. 4. — Basket with design of unknown significance. Placer County.
Height, 4.25 cm. Cat. No. rffa.

FIG. 5. — Basket with design of unknown significance. Plumas County.
Diameter, 25 cm. Cat. No. /¥°g.

FIG. 6. — Basket with design of unknown significance. El Dorado
County. Height, 10 cm. Cat. No. yfyy.

FIG. 7. — Basket with design of unknown significance. Butte County.
Height, 10.5 cm. Cat. No. Tf|^.

FIG. 8. — Basket with design of unknown significance. Plumas County.
(Compare Plate XX, Figs. 3, 4, 6.) Height, 14.5 cm.
Cat. No. .

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XVIII.

PIT RIVER BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with design of mussel's tongue. Height, 13 cm.
Cat. No. Tf£g.

FIG; 2. — Basket with design of mussel's tongue. Height, 8.5 cm.
Cat. No. Tff¥.

FIG. 3. — Basket with design of mussel's tongue. Height, 22 cm. Cat.
No. T||5.

FIG. 4. — Basket with skunk design. Height, 10.5 cm. Cat. No. Tffe.
FIG. 5. — Basket with fish-tail design. Height, 21.5 cm. Cat. No. TffT.

FIG. 6. — Basket with "bent-knee" design. Height, 16.5 cm. Cat.
No.

! A. M. N. H.

VOL. XVII, PLATE XVIII.

jmu'«: ;',«.•«;

|.|V?i.M»«l'.».

PIT RIVKR BASKETS.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XIX.

PIT RIVER BASKETS.

FIG. -I. — Basket with lizard or lizard-foot design. Height, 9 cm.
Cat. No. Tff ¥.

FIG. 2. — Basket with lizard or lizard-foot and diamond design.
Height, 11.5 cm. Cat. No. yffg.

FIG. 3. — Basket with "eye" and lizard-foot design. Height, 1 1.5 cm.
Cat. No. Tf£T.

FIG. 4. — Basket with design, on the bottom, of meadow-lark's neck;
above, quail; on the rim, mountain or bear's foot and
mussel's tongue. Height, 40 cm. Cat. No. T|f 9.

FIG. 5. — Basket with flying-geese design. Height, 7.5 cm. Cat. No.
FIG. 6. — Basket with flying-geese design. Height, 25 cm. Cat. No.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XX.

PIT RIVER BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with flying-geese (?) and pine-cone design. Height,
25 cm. Cat. No. Tf|,.

FIG. 2. — Basket with design1 of bushes. Height, 20.25 cm- Cat.

FIG. 3. — Basket with design of deer-guts and arrow-points. Height,
7 cm. Cat. No.

FIG. 4. — Basket with deer-gut design. Height, 9.5 cm. Cat. No.

FIG. 5. — Basket with deer-rib and arrow-point design. Height, 12.5
cm. Cat. No. .

FIG. 6. — Basket with deer-gut and arrow-point design. Height, 28
cm. Cat. No. T|fT.

LLET1N A. M. N. H

VOL. XVII. PLATE XX.

PIT RIVER BASKETS.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XXI.

PIT RIVER BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with deer-excrement design. Height, 8 cm. Cat.
No. Tf§-5.

FIG. 2. — Basket with deer-excrement design. Diameter, 51.5 cm.
Cat. No. Tffc.

•

FIG. 3. — Basket with deer-excrement and "rough" or "crooked"
design. Height, 8 cm. Cat. No. T|J3.

FIG. 4. — Basket with "rough" or "crooked" and arrow-point design.
Height, 10.5 cm. Cat. No.

FIG. 5. — Basket with arrow-point design. Height, 8 cm. Cat. No.
tttf

JLLET1N A. M. N. H.

VOL. XVII, PLATE XXI.

PIT RIVER BASKETS.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XXII.

PIT RIVER BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with design of unknown significance. Height, 7.5
cm. Cat. No. Tf£T.

FIG. 2. — Basket with arrow-point (?) or flying-geese (?) design.
Height, 12 cm. Cat. No. T|f^.

4
FIG. 3. — Basket with design of skunk's nose. Height, 19.5 cm. Cat.

No. Tffc.

FIG. 4. — Basket with arrow-point design. Height, 23 cm. Cat. No.
rlii

FIG. 5. — Basket with design of lizard (?) or owl's claw (?). Diameter,
12.5 cm. Cat. No.

FIG. 6. — Basket with flying-geese (?) design. Height, 20 cm. Cat.

VOL. XVII, PLATE XXII.

PIT RIVER BASKETS.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XXIII.

WINTUN BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with design, at base, of arrow-points; above, of
"bent elbow." Height, 18 cm. Cat. No. Tfgg.

FIG. 2. — Basket with fish-tail design. Height, 9.5 cm. Cat. No.

FIG. 3. — Basket with water-snake design. Height, 10.75 cm- Cat.
No.

FIG. 4. — Basket with rattlesnake-head design. Height, 12 cm. Cat.
No.

FIG. 5. — Basket with design of wolf's eye. Height, 10 cm. Cat.

No.

FIG. 6. — Basket with flying-geese design. Height, 9 cm. Cat. No.
lift

FIG. 7. — Basket with design, at base, of rattlesnake-heads (?) ; above,
of flying geese; on the rim, of arrow-points. Height, 19.5
cm. Cat. No.

FIG. 8. — Basket with design below of bear's foot; above, of arrow-
points. Height, 10 cm. Cat. No. TfgT.

ITIX A. M. N. H.

VOL. XVII, PLATE XXIII.

4

7

WINTUN BASKETS.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XXIV.

WINTUN BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with " empty- spool " design. Height, 10 cm. Cat.

No.

FIG. 2. — Basket with "empty-spool" design. Height, 6 cm. Cat.
No.

FIG. 3. — Basket with design of "leaves strung along." Height, 12
cm. Cat. No.

FIG. 4. — Basket with deer-excrement design. Height, 10.5 cm. Cat.
No.

FIG. 5. — Basket with " pulled-around " design. Height, 10.5 cm.
Cat. No. Tf^.

FIG. 6. — Basket with "striped" design. Height, 22.5 cm. Cat. No.

T!^-

FIG. 7. — Basket with "striped" design. Height, 14 cm. Cat. No.

FIG. 8. — Basket with design of cross-waves. Height, 9 cm. Cat.
No.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XXV.

YANA AND MOQUELUMNIAN BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with wolf's-eye design (Yana). Height, 18.5 cm.
Cat. No. ^g.

FIG. 2. — Basket with house design (Yana). Height, 12.5 cm. Cat.
No. T?fo.

FIG. 3. — Basket with design similar to the Maidu earthworm and Pit
River deer-excrement pattern (Moquelumnian) . Height ,
31 cm. Cat. No. rffr.

FIG. 4. — Basket with design similar to the rattlesnake and water-
snake pattern of the southern Maidu (Moquelumnian).
Height, 36 cm. Cat. No. Tf^.,.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XXVI.

MOQUELUMNIAN BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with design similar to the "eye" and diamond pat
tern of the Maidu. Height, 22.5 cm. Cat. No. Tf§^.

FIG. 2. — Basket with quail-tip design. Calaveras County. Height,
18.5 cm. Cat. No. T|g¥.

FIG. 3. — Basket with design of unknown significance. Height, 30
cm. Cat. No. Tffa.

FIG. 4. — Basket with design of unknown significance. Height, 29
cm. Cat. No.

FIG. 5. — Basket with design of unknown significance. Height, 25
cm. Cat. No. Tf§T.

-LF.TIN A. M. N. H.

VOL. XVII, PLATE XXVI.

MOQUELUMNIAN BASKETS.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XXVII.

POMO BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with design of quail-tip and red mountains. Height,
10 cm. Cat. No. T5yV

FIG. 2. — Basket with design of quail-tip and red mountains. Height,

5 cm. Cat. No. T%.

FIG. 3. — Basket with design of quail-tip and red mountains. Height,
6.5 cm. Cat. No. T\°0.

FIG. 4. — Basket with design of red mountains, quail-tip, and spotted
skin of fawn. Height, 10.5 cm. Cat. No. T5^U.

FIG. 5. — Basket with design of red mountains and quail-tip. Height,
7 cm. Cat. No. WV

FIG. 6. — Basket with design of quail-tip and red mountains. Height,

6 cm. Cat. No. T6&.

•Fie. 7. — Basket with design of red mountains and buckeye. Height,
5.5 cm. Cat. No. /&.

FIG. 8. — Basket with design of red mountains and grasshopper-leg.
Height, n cm. Cat. No. T5/T.

FIG. 9. — Basket with leaf design around the base, and mountains
above. Height, 5.5 cm. Cat. No. Y\°T.

I.LKTIN A. M. N. H.

VOL. XVII, PLATE XXVII.

7

<f
9

POMO BASKETS.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XXVIII.

POMO BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with design of crossing trails and quail- tips. Height,
11.25 crn- Cat. No. T\°T.

FIG. 2. — Basket with design of crossing trails and zigzag. Height,
3.5 cm. Cat. No. T5^.

FIG. 3. — Basket with design of unknown significance. Height, 7.75
* cm. Cat. No. T^°g.

FIG. 4. — Basket with design of unknown significance. Diameter,
57.5 cm. Cat. No. /^V

FIG. 5. — Basket with design of unknown significance. Height, 5.5
cm. Cat. No. T\V

FIG. 6. — Basket writh design of crossing trails and quail-tips. Height,
5.5 cm. Cat. No. g^-

FIG. 7. — Basket with design of unknown significance. Height, 8.5
cm. Cat. No.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XXIX.

POMO BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with zigzag and quail-tip design. Height, 7.5 cm.
Cat. No. T5TV

FIG. 2. — Basket with zigzag design. Height, 12 cm. Cat. No. /T°7.
FIG. 3. — Basket with zigzag (?) design. Diameter, 39 cm. Cat. No.

FIG. 4. — Basket with arrow-point design. Height, 15 cm. Cat.
No. Vft.

FIG. 5. — Basket with design of crossing trails. Height, 13.25 cm.
Cat. No. .

ULLHT1N A. M. N. H.

VOL. XV IT, PLATE XXIX.

POMO BASKETS.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XXX.

POMO BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with designs from below upward as follows: zigzag,
red mountains, zigzag, red mountains and zigzag com
bined, half arrow-points, red mountains, zigzag, meshes
in fishnet. Height, 39.5 cm. Cat. No. T5T°5.

FIG. 2. — Basket with design of unknown significance. Height, 29.5
cm. Cat. No. T\V

FIG. 3. — Basket with designs from below upward as follows: zigzag,
red mountains, red mountains and zigzag, red mountains
and zigzag, zigzag, meshes in fishnet. Height, 48 cm.
Cat. No.

LLETIN A. M. N. H.

VOL. XVII, PLATE XXX.

POMO BASKETS.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XXXI.

POMO BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with design of red mountains; round the rim, of
meshes in fishnet. Height, 46.5 cm. Cat. No. T\°ff.

FIG. 2. — Basket with designs from below upward as follows: meshes
in fishnet, zigzag, zigzag, meshes in fishnet, zigzag, meshes
in fishnet. Height, 47.5 cm. Cat. No. T5T°¥.

LLF.TIN A. M. N. H.

VOL. XVII, PLATE XXXI.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XXXII.

POMO BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with design of unknown significance. Height, 47.5
cm. Cat. No. ^.

FIG. 2. — Basket with design of unknown significance. Height, 53
cm. Cat. No. ^TOP

.ETIN A. M. N. H.

VOL. XVII, PLATE XXXII.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XXXIII.

POMO BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with design of zigzag and red mountains. Height,
1 8 cm. Cat. No. -75,°T.

FIG. 2. — Basket with design of zigzag, red mountains, and arrow-
points. Height, 30 cm. Cat. No. -/o?.

FIG. 3. — Basket with design of red mountains. Height, 25.5 cm.
Cat. No.

FIG. 4. — Basket with design of red mountains, zigzag, and arrow-
points. Height, 39.5 cm. Cat. No. ^y1^.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XXXIV.

POMO BASKETS.

FIG. T. — Basket with designs from below upward as follows: crow's
tracks, red mountains, red mountains, zigzag, buckeye-
trees, meshes in fishnet. Height, 34.5 cm. Cat. No. J5,.0..

FIG. 2. — Basket with designs from below upward as follows: red
mountains, red mountains, zigzag, buckeye-trees, design
of unknown significance, meshes in fishnet. Height, 55.5
cm. Cat. No. ^.

FIG. 3. — Basket with designs of crossing tracks, zigzag, red moun
tains; around the rim, meshes in fishnet; design on the
right not explained. Height, 27 cm. Cat. No. y5^.

N

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XXXVI.

POMO BASKETS.

FIG. i. — Basket with arrow-point design. Diameter, 47.5 cm. Cat.
No. AV

FIG. 2. — Basket with design of crossing tracks (?). Diameter, 50
cm. Cat. No. -

FIG. 3. — Basket with zigzag design. Diameter, 41 cm. Cat. No. /T\.
FIG. 4. — Basket with quail-tip design. Diameter, 56 cm. Cat. No.

BI-LLETIN A. M. N. H.

VOL. XVTI, PLATE XXXVI.

POMO BASKETS.

ULLETIN A. M. N. H.

VOL. XVII, PLATE XXXVII,

J

7

EAST AFRICAN BASKETS.

(Continued from ^.th page of cover?)

Vol. III. Anthropology (not yet completed).

PART I. — Symbolism of the Huichol Indians. By Carl Lumholtz. Pp. 1-228,
pll. i-iv, and 291 text figures. May, 1900. Price, $5.00.

Vol. IV. Anthropology (not yet completed).

Jesup North Pacific Expedition.

PART I. — Traditions of the Chilcotin Indians. By Livingston Farrand. Pp.

I-54- June, 1900. Price, $1.50.
PART II. — Cairns of British Columbia and Washington. By Harlan I. Smith

and Gerard Fowke. Pp. 55-75, pll. i-v, and 9 text figures. January,

1901. Price, $1.50.
PART III. — Traditions of the Quinault Indians. By Livingston Farrand and

W. S. Kahnweiler. (In press.)

Vol. V. Anthropology (not yet completed).

Jesup North Pacific Expedition.
PART I. — Kwakiutl Texts. By Franz Boas and George Hunt. (In press.)

Vol. VI. Anthropology.

Hyde Expedition.
The Night Chant, a Navaho Ceremony. By Washington Matthews. (In press.)

Vol. VII. Anthropology (not yet completed).

Jesup North Pacific Expedition.

PART I. — The Decorative Art of the Amur Tribes. By Berthold Laufer.
Pp. 1-79, pll. i-xxxiii, and 24 text figures. December, 1901. Price, $3.00.

ETHNOGRAPHICAL ALBUM.

Jesup North Pacific Expedition.

Ethnographical Album of the North Pacific Coasts of America and Asia. Par*-
I, pp. 1-5, pll. 1-28. August, 1900. Sold by subscription, pri<

BULLETIN.

The matter in the ' Bulletin ' consists of about twenty-four an
volume, which relate about equally to Geology, Palaeontology, Mammalogy,
Ornithology, Entomology, and (in the recent volumes) Anthropology, except
Vol. XI, which is restricted to a 'Catalogue of the Types and Figured Speci
mens in the Palaeontological Collection of the Geological Department.'

Volume I,i88i-86 Price, $5.00

II, 1887-90

III, 1890-91

IV, 1892 ....

1893 ....

1894 ....

1895 ....
1896

IX, 1897 ,

X, 1898

V
VI
VII
VIII

4.75

4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00

4.75

4-75

Volume XI, Part I, 1898, Pr ce, 1.25

" II, 1899 2.00

" " III, rgOO 2.OO

" " IV, 1901 1.75

<k (Complete). 5.00

XII, 1899 4.00

XIII, 1900 4.00

XIV, 1900 4.00

XV, Parti, 1901 3.00

AMERICAN MUSEUM JOURNAL.

The ' Journal ' is a popular record of the progress of the American Museum
of Natural History, issued in numbers. Price, $1.00 a year.

For sale by G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS, New York and London ;

J. B. BAILIERLE ET FILS, Paris ; R. FRIEDLANDER & SOHN, Berlin

and at the Museum.

PUBLICATIONS

OF THE

American Museum of Natural History

The publications of the American Museum of Natural History consist of

the ' Bulletin,' in octavo, of which one volume, consisting of about 400 pages,

anA about 25 plates, with numerous text figures, is published annually ; and

the ' Memoirs,' in quarto, published in parts at irregular intervals. Also an

'Ethnographical Album,' issued in parts, and the 'American Museum

Journal.'

MEMOIRS.
Each Part of the ' Memoirs' forms a separate and complete monograph,

with numerous plates.

Vol. I (not yet completed).

PART I. — Republication of Descriptions of Lower Carboniferous Grinoidea
from the Hall Collection now in the American Museum of Natural His
tory, with Illustrations of the Original Type Specimens not heretofore
Figured. By R. P. Whitfield. Pp. 1-37, pll. i-iii, and 14 text cuts.
Septembef 15, 1893. Price, $2.00.

PART II. — Republication of Descriptions of Fossils from the Hall Collection in
the American Museum of Natural History, from the report of Progress for
1861 of the Geological Survey of Wisconsin, by James Hall, with Illus
trations from the Original Type Specimens not heretofore Figured. By
R. P. Whitfield. Pp. 39-74, pll. iv-xii. August 10, 1895. Price, $2.00.

PART III. — The Extinct Rhinoceroses. By Henry F airfield Osborn. Part I.
Pp. 75-164, pll. xiitf-xx, and 49 text cuts. April 22, 1898. Price, $4.20.

PART IV. — A Complete Mosasaur Skeleton. By Henry Fairfield Osborn. Pp.
165-188, pll. xxi-xxiii, and 15 text figures. October 25, 1899.

PART V.— A Skeleton of Diplodocus. By Henry Fairfiekl Osborn. Pp.
189-214, pll. xxiv-xxviii, and 15 text figures. October 25, .1899. Price
of Parts IV and V, issued under one cover, $2.00.

PART VI. — Monograph of the Sesiidoe of America, North of Mexico. By Wil
liam Beutenmuller. Pp. 215-352, pll. xxix-xx.xvi, and 24 text cuts.
March, 1901. Price, $5.00.

PART VIT. — Fossil Mammals of the Tertiary of Northeastern Colorado. By
W. D. Matthew. Pp. 353-447, pll. xxxvii-xxxix, and 34 text cuts. No
vember, 1901. Price, $3.00.

Vol. II. Anthropology.

Jesup Arort/i Pacific Expedition.

PARTI. — Facial Paintings of the Indians of Northern British Columbia. By
Franz Boas. Pp. 1-24, pll. i-vi. June 16, 1898; Price, $2.00.

PART II. — The Mythology of the Bella Coola Indians. By Franz Boas. Pp.
25-127, pll. vii-xii. November, 1898. Price, $2.00.

PART III. — The Archaeology of Lytton, British Columbia. By Flarlan I.
Smith. Pp. 129-161, pi. xiii, and 117 text figures. May, 1899. Price, $2.00.

PART IV. — The Thompson Indians of British Columbia. By James Teit.
Edited by Franz Boas. Pp. 163-392, pll. xiv-xx, and 198 text figu-es.
April, 1900. Price, $5.00.

PART V.— Basketry Designs of the Salish Indians. By Livingston Farrand.
Pp. 393-399, pll. xxi-xxiii, and 15 text figures. April, 1900. Price, 75 cts.

PAR*T VI. — Archaeology of the Thompson River Region. By Harlan I. Smith.
Pp. 401-442, pll. xxiv-xxvi, and 51 text figures. (With title-page, con
tents, and index to Vol. II.) June, 1900. Price, $2.00.
( Con tin ued on $d pa^e of cover. )